Sharp Family Market v. USA

Filing 29

ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 21 is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Defendants Motion To Vacate Trial Date and Stay All Deadlines Pending Action on Magistrate Judges Recommendation To Dismiss Case 28 filed 8/24/2011, is DENIED as moot. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/25/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02436-REB-BNB
SHARP FAMILY MARKET, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, and
MOUNTAIN PLAINS REGION COMPLIANCE CENTER,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge [#21]1 filed June 30, 2011; and (2) Defendants’ Motion To
Vacate Trial Date and Stay All Deadlines Pending Action on Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation To Dismiss Case [#28] filed August 24, 2011. Neither party has
filed objections to the recommendation. Because no party filed objections to the
recommendation, I review the recommendation only for plain error. See MoralesFernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir.

1

“[#21]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

2005).2 Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge’s recommended
disposition, I approve and adopt the recommendation and grant the motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff is a Colorado limited liability company. On May 5, 2011, the
magistrate judge permitted the plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw. Order [#18]. The
magistrate judge cautioned the plaintiff that, as an entity, it cannot represent itself or
appear in this court without counsel admitted to practice before this court. The
magistrate judge warned the plaintiff of various sanctions that could be imposed on the
plaintiff if it failed to obtain counsel. The magistrate judge ordered also that the plaintiff
cause substitute counsel to enter an appearance on or before May 20, 2011. Order
[#18]. Hearing nothing from the plaintiff, the magistrate judge issued an order to show
cause [#20] directing the plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to cause substitute
counsel to enter an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed nothing
in this case since the magistrate judge permitted the plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw. Mail
addressed to the plaintiff has been returned to the court. See [#25, #26].
In his recommendation, the magistrate judge recommends that this case be
dismissed under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this
action and based on the plaintiff’s failure to cause substitute counsel to enter an
appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. Given the circumstances of this case, the
magistrate judge’s recommended disposition of this case is undoubtedly correct.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#21] filed

2

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122.

2

June 30, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1, this case is
DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. That the Defendants’ Motion To Vacate Trial Date and Stay All Deadlines
Pending Action on Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation To Dismiss Case [#28]
filed August 24, 2011, is DENIED as moot.
Dated August 25, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3